Comment on Pulleyblank: Duality in Language Evolution

Summer 1986 COMMENT ON PULLEYBLANK Duality in Language Evolution David F. Armstrong Pulleyblank has previously presented a convincing argument for the importance of duality of patterning in the evolution of language and, indeed, in the evolution of human cognitive capabilities generally (Pulleyblank 1983). This paper extends some of his ideas. In the course of this argument he calls into question the possession of duality by signed languages, and before going too far with this argument we should give some consideration to what duality refers to. Here are some commonly cited elements of duality: The human vocal apparatus is capable of producing a vast array of sounds. Each language incorporates a very small and relatively fixed number of these, ahd the sets of sounds, so incorporated, differ from language to language. The rules in a given language for generating morphemes from the stock of phonemes are independent of the rules for generating meaningful utterances (words and sentences) from the stock of morphemes. This is the general statement of the principle of duality of patterning or double articulation. For reasons that will be discussed at greater length below, these elements relating to duality of patterning imply that languages having this @ 1986 by Linstok Press, Inc. See inside front cover. ISSN 0302-1475 SLS 51 Comment, DFA : 122 characteristic will tend to have arbitrary or symbolic relationships between words and the things they refer to. Closer examination of these elements reveals that more than duality of patterning is implied. In fact, we can identify at least four layers of patterning entailed by the foregoing statements: A phonetic level -- at this level are described the physical characteristics of the sounds that are employed by the speakers of a particular language (or all the sounds that could be employed; i.e. phonetics of a language or general phonetics). A phonemic level -- at this level are described the sets of sounds (phonemes), meaningless in themselves, that specify differences in meaning in that language and the phonological rules for their assembly into meaningful units (morphemes). A morphological level -- at this level are described the rules of assembly of morphemes into unbound meaningful units (words). A syntactic level -- at this level are described the rules of assembly of words into higher order utterances (phrases and sentences). The reader is due an apology for having to sit through this simplistic discussion of structural linguistics. However, it is important to keep these ideas clearly in mind as we consider the arguments put forth by Pulleyblank. The duality that Pulleyblank is concerned with is that specifying the break between the phonemic and morphological levels; the break, that is, between the meaningless and the meaningful. What specifically would we look for if we wanted to demonstrate that a communication system, say a signed Summer 1986 SLS 51 Comment, DFA : 123 language, has the property of duality? Selection by signers of a relatively small number of the handshapes, facial expressions, etc. that could constitute minimally contrasting pairs. This stock of elements should be relatively fixed (i.e. introduction of new elements should be relatively gradual). Systematic rules of articulation of these meaningless units into signs. Independence of the rules of articulation of the meaningless phonological or cherological items from the semantic and syntactic constraints on the assembly of higher order utterances. The argument for duality in American Sign Language is strongest from the point of view of the first of these points, progressively weaker with respect to the next two. First, it is not clear that the handshapes of ASL, usually thought of as elements in the stock of phonemes, are themselves always or even usually meaningless in isolation. This can be made clear by a consideration of the 'F' handshape representing grasped objects, the 'O' handshape representing round objects, the 'C' handshape representing cylindrical or spherical objects, etc. It is not clear, then, whether these handshapes are more comparable to morphemes or to phonemes, or whether they are sometimes one, sometimes the other. Second, because of the fundamental iconicity underlying signing, it is not clear that there is a strict separation between the levels with respect to rules of articulation, or that the rules are always fixed; i.e. because of the...